ML12090A521: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 24: Line 24:
'Lisa Rainwater';
'Lisa Rainwater';
scullen@gracelinks.org RE: IP Sampling Follow up Correspondence req'd During the past academic year, I've made good progress on the analysis of radionuclides in sediment and shellfish from the Hudson River at locations near and far from the Indian Point facility.
scullen@gracelinks.org RE: IP Sampling Follow up Correspondence req'd During the past academic year, I've made good progress on the analysis of radionuclides in sediment and shellfish from the Hudson River at locations near and far from the Indian Point facility.
Thus far, I can summarize the results as follows: 1. Regarding the shellfish, levels of Cs-137, Sr-90, Cs-134, Co-60, or Sr-89 clam shells and meats were all below the methodological limit of detection.  
Thus far, I can summarize the results as follows: 1. Regarding the shellfish, levels of Cs-137, Sr-90, Cs-134, Co-60, or Sr-89 clam shells and meats were all below the methodological limit of detection.
: 2. Regarding sediment, there we quantified Cs-137, K-40, Ra-226, and Th-232 in the sediments collected in close vicinity to Indian Point. However, those levels were not elevated relative to sediment samples north or south of the IP facility.
: 2. Regarding sediment, there we quantified Cs-137, K-40, Ra-226, and Th-232 in the sediments collected in close vicinity to Indian Point. However, those levels were not elevated relative to sediment samples north or south of the IP facility.
This is not what I was expecting, but the data is solid. One thought I had was with regard to the clams. They were smaller than I had anticipated and therefore have accumulated less total mass and mass of radionuclides than older individuals would have. Therefore, perhaps this year, larger clams could be collected?
This is not what I was expecting, but the data is solid. One thought I had was with regard to the clams. They were smaller than I had anticipated and therefore have accumulated less total mass and mass of radionuclides than older individuals would have. Therefore, perhaps this year, larger clams could be collected?
I'd also be open to other suggestions, thoughts, or questions.
I'd also be open to other suggestions, thoughts, or questions.
Sincerely, Chris Christopher J. Gobler, PhD Associate Professor School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University RK0001069}}
Sincerely, Chris Christopher J. Gobler, PhD Associate Professor School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University RK0001069}}

Revision as of 03:29, 30 April 2019

Entergy Pre-Filed Hearing Exhibit ENT000368, IP Sampling
ML12090A521
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 07/10/2008
From: Gobler C J
Stony Brook University
To: Musegaas P
- No Known Affiliation, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
Shared Package
ML12090A520 List:
References
RAS 22146, 50-247-LR, 50-286-LR, ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML12090A521 (1)
v • d • e


Text

ENT000368 Submitted: March 29, 2012 From: Sent: To: Cc:

Subject:

Categories:

All, cgobler@notes.cc.sunysb.edu Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:52 PM Phillip Musegaas jlipscomb@riverkeeper.org;

'Lisa Rainwater';

scullen@gracelinks.org RE: IP Sampling Follow up Correspondence req'd During the past academic year, I've made good progress on the analysis of radionuclides in sediment and shellfish from the Hudson River at locations near and far from the Indian Point facility.

Thus far, I can summarize the results as follows: 1. Regarding the shellfish, levels of Cs-137, Sr-90, Cs-134, Co-60, or Sr-89 clam shells and meats were all below the methodological limit of detection.

2. Regarding sediment, there we quantified Cs-137, K-40, Ra-226, and Th-232 in the sediments collected in close vicinity to Indian Point. However, those levels were not elevated relative to sediment samples north or south of the IP facility.

This is not what I was expecting, but the data is solid. One thought I had was with regard to the clams. They were smaller than I had anticipated and therefore have accumulated less total mass and mass of radionuclides than older individuals would have. Therefore, perhaps this year, larger clams could be collected?

I'd also be open to other suggestions, thoughts, or questions.

Sincerely, Chris Christopher J. Gobler, PhD Associate Professor School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University RK0001069

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12090A521&oldid=1552692"